Tiny wrong thing during A350 HUD discussion

    First of all, I'm not good at English so I apologize if there's mistake and if there is false information 😔

    In this post, He said that there are A350-1000s in Asiana and Korean Air

    But there is no A350-1000 in Asiana Airlines and Korean Air right now

    However they do have A350-900s

    and In my opinion Asiana Airlines do not have HUD

    And there are 3 Korean Air A350s which is ordered by Asiana Airlines so they won't have HUDs

    but Future Korean Air A350 could have HUDs Because they were ordered in Korean Air version

    Please comment if there is false information

    This was when the -1000 wasn’t confirmed and speculation was the -900 would come out at the same time due to the previews

    Best,

    War

    Aerofly Global (IOS) Iphone 12 Mini

    Quote from Gravitational lensing

    Currently, in Aerofly, there is still no function for accurately reproducing optional aircraft components or providing custom part configurations. As a result, some aircraft have extra or missing certain parts, such as HUDs, cabin doors, landing gear lights, wingtip

    I think the sheer complexity & attention to detail required for things like this will make the development time longer and wouldn't be as rewarding. now imagine doing this for every livery of the same aircraft. every config is different every airline has different priorities. for a small team like ipacs this will be very difficult to produce such details in time for the next update/demand.

    Quote from aeroftw

    I think the sheer complexity & attention to detail required for things like this will make the development time longer and wouldn't be as rewarding. now imagine doing this for every livery of the same aircraft. every config is different every airline has different priorities. for a small team like ipacs this will be very difficult to produce such details in time for the next update/demand.


    Custom configuration could be a good way to solve this issue. Users would be able to adjust certain components according to real-world conditions. However, this is just an idea. I will remain neutral on this matter

    Definitely a good thing but it will require remodeling of aircraft which can take time if made in house by ipacs but if they get it outsourced by for eg aerosoft I'm not sure about the changes they can make even if it's possible. in that case they might need to buy multiple models increase cost of development. (that's what I think could be the case don't quote me on this)

    Quote from aeroftw

    Definitely a good thing but it will require remodeling of aircraft which can take time if made in house by ipacs but if they get it outsourced by for eg aerosoft I'm not sure about the changes they can make even if it's possible. in that case they might need to buy multiple models increase cost of development. (that's what I think could be the case don't quote me on this)

    For aircraft, I feel IPACS being more open to community developers actively contributing and developing various things like models, systems, compatibility and things could really shave off development time and quality can be checked for sufficiency, plus people can get the features they want.